• New Study Finds No Link Between Gaming And Sexist Attitudes.
    56 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47537202]I wonder why they're considered academic materials then?[/QUOTE] i'm going to have to agree with zeke on the point that not all academic materials need to necessarily be backed by scientific rigor and evidence, depending on what it is that is trying to be taught [editline]15th April 2015[/editline] i don't think sarkeesian's videos are worth it, though
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47537416]Her videos and herself are being used as academic resources in the humanities?[/QUOTE] I don't know what you're getting at.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;47535432]as a quant scholar i'm curious to see how they operationalized their study due to this component: as with tons of studies of videogames out there plenty tend to aggregate games that we'd consider "hardcore" and "casual" styles of games. the article opens up with extremely targeted questions about oversexualized women in fighting games and damsels in distress in mario, but then goes on to talk about an aggregated view that may or may not include games like candy crush or temple runner or whatever. unfortunately the study itself is behind a paywall so i can't figure out how they set up their measures and evaluate whether or not they appear to be valid measures of what they're trying to determine, or rather what the publicized perception of the article is targeted at. looking at gaming as a whole is fine, but it sort of misses the point of most game focused criticism, that titles and work environments in the AAA are partially hostile towards women. i should clarify here before mouths foam over that i don't think that the gaming industry is any more sexist or any less sexist than the standard population. but to be completely honest that's not even really that difficult of a mark to hit given extraordinarily common occurrences of sexual harassment in the workplace the world over, so.[/QUOTE] I'm glad they took a broad view. Feminists who claim that video games cause sexist attitudes use evidence found in a few specific examples, and then they extrapolate that to say gaming as a whole is sexist. This study shows that this is false. [editline]16th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;47537473]I don't know what you're getting at.[/QUOTE] He is wondering why her videos belong in the humanities.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47537076]\ Saying that sexist things in media reflects sexism in culture is a completely reasonable assertion and Sarkeesian doesn't claim that sexism would decrease or go away if video games weren't sexist, nor does she attempt to claim that her videos are rigorous scientific studies.[/QUOTE] Reasonable yes, but isn't backed by any evidence.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;47535432]as a quant scholar i'm curious to see how they operationalized their study due to this component: as with tons of studies of videogames out there plenty tend to aggregate games that we'd consider "hardcore" and "casual" styles of games. the article opens up with extremely targeted questions about oversexualized women in fighting games and damsels in distress in mario, but then goes on to talk about an aggregated view that may or may not include games like candy crush or temple runner or whatever. unfortunately the study itself is behind a paywall so i can't figure out how they set up their measures and evaluate whether or not they appear to be valid measures of what they're trying to determine, or rather what the publicized perception of the article is targeted at. looking at gaming as a whole is fine, but it sort of misses the point of most game focused criticism, that titles and work environments in the AAA are partially hostile towards women. i should clarify here before mouths foam over that i don't think that the gaming industry is any more sexist or any less sexist than the standard population. but to be completely honest that's not even really that difficult of a mark to hit given extraordinarily common occurrences of sexual harassment in the workplace the world over, so.[/QUOTE] You keep saying things like " that titles and work environments in the AAA are partially hostile towards women." as if that was well known truth. Then you attempt to discreet the study by how generalized it is. Is it not the main point taking a generalized view into this subject? If you specifically hunt for certain titles or genres you are bound to find what you're looking for - removing the whole point of the study and fuelling your own agenda. Finally, you end your post with "be completely honest that's not even really that difficult of a mark to hit given extraordinarily common occurrences of sexual harassment in the workplace the world over" which not only is it deceitful, it simply has nothing to do with the topic.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;47537528]I'm glad they took a broad view. Feminists who claim that video games cause sexist attitudes use evidence found in a few specific examples, and then they extrapolate that to say gaming as a whole is sexist. This study shows that this is false.[/QUOTE] This study is a piece of evidence that the idea that gaming is more sexist than other media or encourages sexist attitudes in its players is false- it's just one study that will not on its own resolve a debate that has been going on for a lot longer than Sarkeesian and her type have been around and has had strong evidence on both sides. More importantly, as others already pointed out, very few people argue what you're suggesting. The prevailing feminist criticism isn't that gaming causes sexism the way Jack Thompson said games cause violence, but rather that games perpetuate sexist attitudes already prevalent in society, normalizing them. This study is a great piece of data to have but it shouldn't be taken as a refutation of anything but the most extreme of (mostly straw-man) arguments.
Remember when crazy Tumblr people listened to facts and scientific evidence? Neither did I!
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47534867]Was anyone really complaining that sexism in games was seeping out into society and making people sexist? The complaints were the inverse, that sexist attitudes present in society were appearing in games. The "games make people violent" thing was bogus for the same reason. If people want to criticize violent games for continuing to promote violence, okay, but the issue was that people claimed it [i]made[/i] people violent and the science simply didn't back it up.[/QUOTE] This guy was. [thumb]https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/9/93/McIntosh_tweets.png[/thumb]
[QUOTE=bunguer;47538426]You keep saying things like " that titles and work environments in the AAA are partially hostile towards women." as if that was well known truth. Then you attempt to discreet the study by how generalized it is. Is it not the main point taking a generalized view into this subject? If you specifically hunt for certain titles or genres you are bound to find what you're looking for - removing the whole point of the study and fuelling your own agenda. Finally, you end your post with "be completely honest that's not even really that difficult of a mark to hit given extraordinarily common occurrences of sexual harassment in the workplace the world over" which not only is it deceitful, it simply has nothing to do with the topic.[/QUOTE] i'm not attempting to discredit the study at all, because i have nothing to go off. i don't have access to the work so I can't see anything in it. I used the "AAA" label simply to create a difference between what we would consider "hardcore" versus "casual" styles of play. As they [B]are[/B] different. For all intents and purposes the distinction I make there is "AAA" as games that are designed for traditional consoles and the PC market with a focus on storytelling or multiplayer play, and "casual" as tablet / smartphone / some PC based games that do not attempt to tell a story and simply exist as general puzzle games, reaction time games, etc. Now I think you need to understand specifically what I'm talking about here - using aggregated approaches versus disaggregated approaches are important for [I]the type of question that is being asked and is being answered.[/I] If this study is supposed to be a response to the feminist leveled criticism against "AAA" games, by including "casual" games they are adding a source of measurement error into these games. I don't watch Anita Sarkeesian at all, but I get the sense that she probably hasn't been criticizing Bejewelled all these years. Thus, by adding in Bejewelled not as a control but as a simple aggregated part of their measure, they're hiding potential sources of data and clouding their potential results. Once again, I cannot discredit the study simply because I don't [B]know[/B] how they operationalized it. And now on to the idea that I'm "removing the point of the study and fuelling my own agenda" - no. I'm evaluating what the established point of that study is and how it is that they sought to answer that point. If the point of the study is to respond to or analyze the question of "do games make people sexist" they failed that already because it would appear they did not utilize an experimental design because there seems to be no control and no experimental groups. Sorry. And no, bringing up that sexual harassment is extremely widespread is neither deceitful or off topic, as it's a fucking fact of life (rates of sexual harassment of women hit roughly 30% in Europe, 25-30% of north america, far more in the Middle East & Africa, etc). a fun little fact for you is despite that only some 65%~ of the population view sexual harassment as a problem, 88% of women do - see a bit of a difference there? that small little thing - the disaggregated approach - is pretty critical to the way that you approach statistical analysis. by taking an aggregated approach you hide data, and you lose extremely helpful and revealing information. there are reasons not to take a disaggregated approach, and speaking frankly (not accusing this study of doing this though!) the primary reason first and foremost is that an aggregated approach tends to have higher r-squares than disaggregated approaches. [editline]16th April 2015[/editline] i've been doing statistical research for various academic departments for 5 years and just worked at the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia doing so i know it hurts to know this but out of all of the people on this forum [B]i know what I'm talking about when it comes to this shit.[/B]
The thing is, if you run into an internet troll, they're gonna find the best attack vector to do the most emotional damage and get you riled up. If you're a man, it's usually your masculinity, sexuality or skill in any particular area that is attacked. If you're a woman, it's mostly your appearance and attractiveness, or they use any form of chauvinist expressions. Assholes will be assholes.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47538704]This guy was. [thumb]https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/9/93/McIntosh_tweets.png[/thumb][/QUOTE] That's just FUCKING HUMANITY.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;47539143]i'm not attempting to discredit the study at all, because i have nothing to go off. i don't have access to the work so I can't see anything in it. I used the "AAA" label simply to create a difference between what we would consider "hardcore" versus "casual" styles of play. As they [B]are[/B] different. For all intents and purposes the distinction I make there is "AAA" as games that are designed for traditional consoles and the PC market with a focus on storytelling or multiplayer play, and "casual" as tablet / smartphone / some PC based games that do not attempt to tell a story and simply exist as general puzzle games, reaction time games, etc. Now I think you need to understand specifically what I'm talking about here - using aggregated approaches versus disaggregated approaches are important for [I]the type of question that is being asked and is being answered.[/I] If this study is supposed to be a response to the feminist leveled criticism against "AAA" games, by including "casual" games they are adding a source of measurement error into these games. I don't watch Anita Sarkeesian at all, but I get the sense that she probably hasn't been criticizing Bejewelled all these years. Thus, by adding in Bejewelled not as a control but as a simple aggregated part of their measure, they're hiding potential sources of data and clouding their potential results. Once again, I cannot discredit the study simply because I don't [B]know[/B] how they operationalized it. And now on to the idea that I'm "removing the point of the study and fuelling my own agenda" - no. I'm evaluating what the established point of that study is and how it is that they sought to answer that point. If the point of the study is to respond to or analyze the question of "do games make people sexist" they failed that already because it would appear they did not utilize an experimental design because there seems to be no control and no experimental groups. Sorry. And no, bringing up that sexual harassment is extremely widespread is neither deceitful or off topic, as it's a fucking fact of life (rates of sexual harassment of women hit roughly 30% in Europe, 25-30% of north america, far more in the Middle East & Africa, etc). a fun little fact for you is despite that only some 65%~ of the population view sexual harassment as a problem, 88% of women do - see a bit of a difference there? that small little thing - the disaggregated approach - is pretty critical to the way that you approach statistical analysis. by taking an aggregated approach you hide data, and you lose extremely helpful and revealing information. there are reasons not to take a disaggregated approach, and speaking frankly (not accusing this study of doing this though!) the primary reason first and foremost is that an aggregated approach tends to have higher r-squares than disaggregated approaches. [editline]16th April 2015[/editline] i've been doing statistical research for various academic departments for 5 years and just worked at the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia doing so i know it hurts to know this but out of all of the people on this forum [B]i know what I'm talking about when it comes to this shit.[/B][/QUOTE] The main problem with the people that claim "video games cause sexism" is that they make that claim despite having no proof and with a lot of myths already debunked such as violence and aggresion.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47539409]The main problem with the people that claim "video games cause sexism" is that they make that claim despite having no proof and with a lot of myths already debunked such as violence and aggresion.[/QUOTE] I'd love to see the "debunking" you've seen of the idea that the media can normalise sexist attitudes. But as with every other claim you've made recently, you're not providing any fucking evidence or a good argument yourself. If you're gonna cite something, tell us what it is and where we can read/ watch it ourselves to save me having to ask constantly. Link us to a good academic paper that acts as a counter point to the idea that the media we consume can affect our views and you might actually win this one. This entire debate is less about media making us violent or making us hate certain groups and more about it normalising the abuse of certain groups or violence in a way that makes it harder to work against these problems.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47539409]The main problem with the people that claim "video games cause sexism" is that they make that claim despite having no proof[/QUOTE] There are plenty of studies suggesting that the media people consume and participate in affects their behavior, which is quite different from the straw man argument that 'video games cause sexism'. I linked to one such study on the previous page. To dismiss those for various reasons but then claim that this new, solitary study is proof is just confirmation bias at work.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47538704]This guy was. [thumb]https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/9/93/McIntosh_tweets.png[/thumb][/QUOTE] I don't know who he is but he's literally saying that video games are just mirroring society. I disagree with the assertion that video games are patriarchal because you control them but he's in absolutely no way trying to say that the patriarchy comes from video games.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47541790]I don't know who he is but he's literally saying that video games are just mirroring society. I disagree with the assertion that video games are patriarchal because you control them but he's in absolutely no way trying to say that the patriarchy comes from video games.[/QUOTE] He's Anita's boss
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47538704]This guy was. [thumb]https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/9/93/McIntosh_tweets.png[/thumb][/QUOTE] What is patriarchal masculinity? Is there matriarchal masculinity? I don't get it.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47537375]I didn't realize academia was comprised solely of science[/QUOTE] That was her goal or rather one of the stated goals on her kickstarter page. Which by the way is missing half the content promised, doesn't release any sources during each video and doesn't credit where the duo got the materials in the first place and only credited after getting a backlash from artists who saw their art on the front of the video without permission. She doesn't name terms. Someone's actually gone through and pointed out just how flawed and unprofessional it is for the academic world. [B]Also, yes, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars"]academia is comprised of mainly sciences due to the needs of research.[/URL][/B] [editline]17th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;47539517]I'd love to see the "debunking" you've seen of the idea that the media can normalise sexist attitudes. But as with every other claim you've made recently, you're not providing any fucking evidence or a good argument yourself. If you're gonna cite something, tell us what it is and where we can read/ watch it ourselves to save me having to ask constantly. Link us to a good academic paper that acts as a counter point to the idea that the media we consume can affect our views and you might actually win this one. This entire debate is less about media making us violent or making us hate certain groups and more about it normalising the abuse of certain groups or violence in a way that makes it harder to work against these problems.[/QUOTE] Because you can't have it both ways, it can't be a mirror and it cannot inform society at the same. That's circular logic right out of the gate. Either its a mirror, or it informs us about what are the norms of society. Or, if you're going to use both, it instead mirrors what we already internalize what is normal in a society and therefor is not at fault.
[QUOTE=Swilly;47545542]Because you can't have it both ways, it can't be a mirror and it cannot inform society at the same. That's circular logic right out of the gate. Either its a mirror, or it informs us about what are the norms of society. Or, if you're going to use both, it instead mirrors what we already internalize what is normal in a society and therefor is not at fault.[/QUOTE] You're saying that either media has no basis in reality and dictates social norms to society, or media has no power to convince people of ideas and only reflects what they already think. That doesn't make any sense. Of course it's some of both, of course media both reflects societal values and helps shape new ones. It's nonsense to say that Reefer Madness has nothing to do with American anti-drug cultural values, and it's nonsense to say that 1984 has no power to affect how people think about totalitarianism. Literary criticism is entirely about how media changes, refutes, or perpetuates ideas already extant in society, or raises new ones altogether. Whether you agree with it or not, there is nothing illogical or circular about the idea that sexist media both reflects sexist societal concepts and contributes to its normalization, and that by avoiding sexist tropes media can help change those social norms.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47545776]You're saying that either media has no basis in reality and dictates social norms to society, or media has no power to convince people of ideas and only reflects what they already think. That doesn't make any sense. Of course it's some of both, of course media both reflects societal values and helps shape new ones. It's nonsense to say that Reefer Madness has nothing to do with American anti-drug cultural values, and it's nonsense to say that 1984 has no power to affect how people think about totalitarianism. Literary criticism is entirely about how media changes, refutes, or perpetuates ideas already extant in society, or raises new ones altogether. Whether you agree with it or not, there is nothing illogical or circular about the idea that sexist media both reflects sexist societal concepts and contributes to its normalization, and that by avoiding sexist tropes media can help change those social norms.[/QUOTE] If that's the case then how does it change? By introducing this concept you begin the chicken and the egg. I would rather argue that media mirrors our society and normalizes attitudes based upon that society. My case and point is Fox News, an entire network based upon and aiding in conservative confirmation bias. This leaves open the ability for outside sources to affect it, such as the viewers. By arguing that media both mirrors and informs, you create a closed loop. And yes I'm being anal about semantics because you cannot both inform and mirror, its not only a paradoxical statement but it also tries to run under the guise of the Policy Paradox.
[QUOTE=Swilly;47546813]If that's the case then how does it change? By introducing this concept you begin the chicken and the egg. I would rather argue that media mirrors our society and normalizes attitudes based upon that society. My case and point is Fox News, an entire network based upon and aiding in conservative confirmation bias. This leaves open the ability for outside sources to affect it, such as the viewers. By arguing that media both mirrors and informs, you create a closed loop. And yes I'm being anal about semantics because you cannot both inform and mirror, its not only a paradoxical statement but it also tries to run under the guise of the Policy Paradox.[/QUOTE] It's not paradoxical because it's not a closed loop. Culture has existed long before videogames, and videogames are not the only thing shaping or affected by culture. It's also not paradoxical because nothing says any given work has to be both a perfect reflection of societal views and a force for changing them at the same time. You even gave an example with Fox News. Yes, Fox mirrors a particular social viewpoint and helps reinforce and normalize it. But if it were changed through some sort of public pressure, it could act as a force to present content divergent from the social norms on which it is based and in doing so help change and shape culture. You're also grossly oversimplifying because even to modernists there is no monolithic culture, there are a multitude of coexisting cultures that simultaneously inform public consciousness, and a work can reflect one culture (for example, our hypothetical Fox News 2.0 could reflect modern liberal culture) to change or overturn another (the existing dogmatic conservative culture). You're arguing with literally the entire body of literary criticism and media theory here, the idea that media both reflects the context it is made in and can be a force for change is not a new one. The feminist argument is that media reflects sexist norms in culture, but by changing to be divergent from those norms could help normalize [I]new[/I] attitudes to replace the old. Beyond the buzzwords and jargon, that's all there is to it. It's not particularly complicated.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47547145]It's not paradoxical because it's not a closed loop. Culture has existed long before videogames, and videogames are not the only thing shaping or affected by culture. It's also not paradoxical because nothing says any given work has to be both a perfect reflection of societal views and a force for changing them at the same time. You even gave an example with Fox News. Yes, Fox mirrors a particular social viewpoint and helps reinforce and normalize it. But if it were changed through some sort of public pressure, it could act as a force to present content divergent from the social norms on which it is based and in doing so help change and shape culture. You're also grossly oversimplifying because even to modernists there is no monolithic culture, there are a multitude of coexisting cultures that simultaneously inform public consciousness, and a work can reflect one culture (for example, our hypothetical Fox News 2.0 could reflect modern liberal culture) to change or overturn another (the existing dogmatic conservative culture). You're arguing with literally the entire body of literary criticism and media theory here, the idea that media both reflects the context it is made in and can be a force for change is not a new one. The feminist argument is that media reflects sexist norms in culture, but by changing to be divergent from those norms could help normalize [I]new[/I] attitudes to replace the old. Beyond the buzzwords and jargon, that's all there is to it. It's not particularly complicated.[/QUOTE] No, I'm taking issue with the semantic use. The whole bit at the end is what I basically said, but without sounding like a closed loop. [editline]17th April 2015[/editline] Changing it from informing, to validation, is key because you are informed of social norms via your parents. Culture serves to invalidate or validate those social norms.
I'm not surprised. I don't think anyone has been able to pin down a definitive link between a single cultural item or type of media and a single shitty behavior. Does the Venn Diagram of shitty sexist people and typical gaming demographics overlap? Yes, definitely, but nowhere near enough to make a real statistical case for causation. In the real world, nothing happens in a vacuum. There are a lot more compelling reasons for people adopting shitty attitudes than a given piece of media.
Games are the Rock&Roll of the 21st Century
Video games are just another form of entertainment. I don't see parents or journalists/reporters getting pissy over sexist or crude lyrics in music. The only reason why games are is because they're more noticeable by society. Even your fucking dog/cat has seen you play tetris; don't lie to yourself. And many people still have the 80's logic. That if you play video games, you're a socially inept person, a sexist woman hating cunt, a fat thirty year old nerd who still watches anime in their mothers basement. Point is, there are many people who have shit against games and their content and the people who play video games. Which is what I don't understand. I don't like being judged as a person because of my pastime. It is fucking ridiculous. That's like if I said someone is a boring social reject because they listen to rap music. Or that someone is stupid because they read manga or watch anime. Those kind of people can keep being bigots. Though I'd be bullshiting if I said that I didn't care.
Anyone who is actually looking towards gaming as a way to combat sexism is a massive dundering idiot who has no clue what they are talking about and needs to fuck off. sexism is everywhere, if you think it's "Only in gaming" then boy are you dumb you should probably first look at, you know, things that actually sexist to the root like you know sexists themselves you know... the source?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.